|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2240138.shtml
Because The Saudi's and the Bush's go way back, there will NEVER be any admission from this Whitehouse that the Saudi's are involved in the insurgency. INSTEAD, we will continue to see belicose language against Syria and Iran.
In the meanwhile, our boys there are BIG FAT TARGETS for these suicidal nutjobs. What is the point, if we can't cut off the funding for fear of insulting our Saudi "Superiors". They own us. They bought the presidency and our government works for their government.
|
Sunni Saudis attempting to fill the power vacuum that was created when the sunni "check" on kurdish, shi'a, and Iranian ambitions was removed with the fall of Saddam, are of far less consequence to "our troops", IMO, than the avoidance of debate and oversight of the Iraq war, by our own representatives in congress. Isn't it long overdue for them to represent us, the voters, and "our troops", by excercising the oversight responsibilities, instead of deliberately shifting deliberations away from where we are in Iraq, and where were likely to be going?
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/...vative-letter/
.....But a leaked letter obtained today by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) office reveals that conservatives have formulated a strategy to avoid talking about the central question of the debate.
In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies:
http://majorityleader.house.gov/docU...rColleague.pdf
<center>Their Terms or Ours?<br>
February 13, 2007
</center>
....... We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.
Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.
We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.
The debate should not be about the surge or its details. <b>This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose........</b>
|
Quote:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ng-the-debate/
.....In response to the Shadegg-Hoekstra letter, Mr. Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic caucus issued this statement:
<b>We all lose when we avoid discussing the war in Iraq.</b> For four years, Republicans failed to conduct any oversight of the war, choosing instead to turn a blind eye and hand the President a blank check on Iraq. <b>Now, Republicans want to do anything but debate Iraq or this new policy of escalation.</b> This is not about whether Democrats or Republicans win or lose. This is about the additional 21,500 American troops who will be sent to Iraq to implement a failed strategy and police a civil war........
|
<b>Observe the "strategy in action", today, on the house floor. Avoid debating the merits of keeeping current and addtional US troops in harm's way....change the subject to the tireless propaganda rant of "fear politics" that was used to get the US into the quagmire in Iraq, in the first place:</b>
Quote:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/in...710.xml&coll=6
More From The Grand Rapids Press
Hoekstra to House: It's not just about Iraq
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Reps. Peter Hoekstra, of Holland, and John Shadegg, of Arizona, are rallying House Republicans against a resolution opposing President Bush's plan for more U.S. troops in Iraq. <b>"If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose," </b>they wrote to GOP colleagues.....
.....What is the threat and how should America respond -- that is the debate we should be having on this floor. This resolution is all about staying the course. It says support our troops and don't engage in new tactics, just keep going down the same path. That's not good enough.
There are people who hate us enough to want to kill. They speak of militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that extends to others, including Muslims. These militant Islamists kill, they kill violently and indiscriminately. But this resolution is silent on the threat that we face as a nation, and it is silent in how we should respond.
Who are these radical Islamists? And what should America's response to this threat be? We face this on a global basis. What is America's response to jihadism? How will America win this war against this calculating enemy? How will America lead the world once again in the face of such a ruthless threat?
The resolution that we're debating today simply asks do you support America's fighting men and women and do you support or oppose a tactic in a battle that is only one front in the war with these militant jihadists who are bent on the destruction of the infidel America and others around the world.
Let me say to my colleagues that I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that this debate is really about whether or not America is a great nation that leads in the face of difficulty. Nor do I believe that I'm wrong to question what actually happens when this debate and vote are over. Have we really helped the American people understand the threat? What message do we send to our troops in harm's way? What is it that the American public needs to understand so that it can better understand the challenges we face? My own answer, Mr. Speaker, was that we need to understand the consequences of failure, <b>and we need to fully understand the nature of the threat that is posed now and, moreover in the future if we fail in the larger war against militant Islam. ........</b>
|
|